1. this appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the additional district judge, bhatinda, dated sept. 10, 1974, by which the decision of the trial court was reversed and the plaintiff-appellant's suit for possession was dismissed.2. it may be pointed out here that there was some delay in the fling of the appeal and as such an application under section 5 of the limitation act was fi1ed praying for condonation of the delay. the bench admitting the appeal observed that the application under s. 5 will be heard along with the appeal. i find that the delay in the filing of the appeal was due to the illness of the appellant. as such, the application for condonation of delay is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. accordingly, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.3. the sole point for determination in this appeal is whether the defendants numbers 1 to 6 are entitled to the protection of section 41 of the transfer of property act (hereafter referred to as the act') in absence of making inspection of record in the registration office.4. the unconverted facts of this case are that amar dass father of sarwan singh, defendant no. 6, and kishan dass father of hakam singh, defendant no. 7, were brothers. ram dass was their third brother. all the three brothers were owners of the land in dispute measuring 169 bighas 15 biswas situated in village naruana. on the death of amar dass, his 1/3rd share was inherited by his son defendant no. 6. this .....

order1. the facts relevant to the matter here are that on may 25, 1955 an area ot 100-kanals was allotted to sahan singh under e scheme for the rehabilitation of political sufferers. this allotment was made under the (colonization of government lands (punjab) act, 1912 thereinafter referred to as 'the act'). a lease deed was executed with regard to this allotment on may 28, 1955 which is at annexure r/2, to !he return filed by respondent 5:2: on april 27, 1978, the said sohan singh died. the collector, hissar, thereafter passed an under (annexure p/1) on 25-2-1977 directing the tehsildar, hissar. to enter they,. reputation in respect of this land in favour of the petitioner smt. tshar kaur, who it is said was the widow of sohan singh; mutation of this land had also been sought by narinder singh respondent 5, who was the brother of the said sohan singh. this application was, however, declined.3. it appeals that narinder singh respondent 5 questioned the mutation of this land in favour of the petitioner by filing an application before the commissioner, hissar division, of march 28, 1977. the commissioner took cognizance of this application and passed an order on april.27, 1977, whereby he set aside the order of the collector, hissar of february 25, 1977 (annexure ph) on the ground that the order of the collector was void and illegal as the mutation had been entered without the approval in writing of the commissioner.4. the commissioner, hissar, wrote a letter to the petitioner .....

1. this is plaintiff second appeal whose suit for possession of agricultural land by way of redemption was decreed by the trial court but has been dismissed in appeal.2. the plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for possession of agricultural land measuring 7 kanals 7 marlas on payment of rs. 212.50 as mortgage money. this land was originally owned by sobha singh who mortgaged it with deva singh for a sum of rs. 300 vide mutation order sanctioned on aug. 29, 1980. after the death of sobha singh his son tarlok singh inherited the property and he further mortgaged it with naginder singh etc. for a sum of rupees 400 and mutation regarding the same was sanctioned on aug. 14. 1938. tarlok singh against mortgaged this land with jhangi singh and nand singh for a sum of rs. 500 and mutation was sanctioned on aug. 18, 1938. tarlok singh also died and the plaintiff and the defendants are his successors-in-interest. pritam kaur plaintiff alleged that she had 1/8th share in the property left by sobha singh as after the death of tarlok singh. santi inherited 1/8th share and she was the successor-in-interest of santi. defendant sher singh got redeemed all the three mortgagees in 1944 and after redemption the share of the plaintiff devolved upon him as a mortgagee. the total amount of all the three mortgages was rs. 1700 and as the share of the plaintiff in the property was 1/8th she was entitled to get possession of her share in the property on payment of rupees 212.15. she filed an .....

1. this is plaintiffs' second appeal whose suit for the declaration has been dismissed by both the courts below.2. the plaintiffs filed the suit on the allegations that mst. ram kaur mortgaged the property, in dispute with raja ram for rs. 135 and 10 annas on the 10th phagan 1957 bk. and delivered its possession to the mortgagee. raja ram, mortgagee, is dead and the plaintiffs are his heirs. mutation of the estate left by raja ram, mortgagee, had been sanctioned in their favour. mst. ram kaur, the mortgagor, is also dead and mst. chhoto is her heir. the mutation in respect of her estate has been sanctioned in her favour. the limitation for redemption had expired and as such, they had become the owners of the property, in dispute. the limitation for redemption was stated to be 60 years from the date of the mortgage. hence the suit for the declaration to the effect that they were not owners of the suit property. the suit was contested and it was pleaded that the right of redemption still existed. the trial court found that the plaintiffs had not become the owners of the suit land by prescription, as alleged. as a result, their suit was dismissed. in appeal, the learned additional district judge, affirmed the said finding of the trial court and, thus, maintain the decree dismissing their suit. dissatisfied with the same, they have come up in second appeal to this court.3. during the pendency of the appeal, the defendants-respondents filed civil miscellaneous application no. 890- .....

s.s. sandhawalia, c.j.1. a meaningful challenge to the ratio of the division bench judgment in inder singh v. mst. kishno, (1966) 68 pun lr 408, has inevitably necessitated this reference to the full bench.2. as would be apparent hereinafter, the legal issue falls within a somewhat narrow compass. it, therefore suffices to notice briefly the facts which are directly relevant to the question.3. the plaintiff-respondent nathi instituted a suit for possession by way of redemption on oct, 4, 1977 on the ground that the land in dispute had been mortgaged by him with possession with the defendants by an oral mortgage on june 14, 1948 for a sum of rs. 2,000/- the mutation with regard to this oral transaction was sanctioned later on sept. 17, 1948. the case of the plaintiff was that he had already paid rs. 2,000/- to the defendants on or about april 1, 1976, but the latter did not get he revenue entries corrected in his name, hence the suit for a decree of possession by redemption and in the alternative if the payment of rs. 2,000/- was not proved, a decree for possession by way of redemption o payment of mortgage money. in the said suit, apart from other defendants, smt. ram kali was also impleaded as defendant no. 3.4. all the defendants except smt. ram kali defendant no. 3 contested the suit inter alia on the ground that the same was not within time and further that it was barred on the principle of res judicata. the factum of mortgage was also denied. specific objection was taken .....

1. this second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the senior subordinate judge, hoshiarpur, dated 22nd october, 1974.2. briefly, the facts are that hako son of jhori was the owner of the property in dispute. he, it is alleged, adopted the plaintiff as his son and executed a registered adoption-deed dated 9th august, 1949, in that regard. he died in 1961. on his death, the land was mutated in the names of the defendants who are the sons of his daughter. the plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration that he being the adopted son of hako was entitled to the property and the mutation had been wrongly sanctioned in the names of the defendants.3. the suit was contested by the defendants who pleaded that the plaintiff along with his brothers and other collaterals filed a suit for injunction against them on the basis of a will of hako in 1965 and the same was dismissed on 31st october, 1966, by mr. t. n. gupta, subordinate judge, hoshiarpur. an appeal against that judgment was dismissed by the additional district judge, hoshiarpur, on 16th april, 1969. it is alleged that in that suit the plaintiff did not allege that he was the adopted son of hako. on the other hand, he treated the adoption-deed as cancelled and filed the suit on the basis of an alleged will. in the circumstances, the suit is barred under o. 2, r. 2, code of civil procedure, and by the principle of res judicata.4. the, trial court hold that the suit was barred under o. 2, r. 2 .....

1. this appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the additional district judge, jullundur, dt. 20th may, 1975.2. briefly, the facts are that ram parkash plaintiff no. 1 and hans raj father of plaintiffs nos. 2 to b (now respondents 4 to 8) were the owners of the property in dispute and teja singh defendant was the tenant under them. the plaintiffs filled an application for ejectment against the defendant under the punjab security of land tenures act. the defendant contested the application and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. he inter alia pleaded that plaintiff no. 1 and hans raj had entered into an agreement dated 8th july, 1959 to sell the land to him, the application was dismissed by the assistant. collector. it was averred that even if there was an agreement between plaintiff no. 1 and hans raj on the one side and the defendant on the other, that was unlawful for the reason that the property was a joint hindu family property. it was further averred that the defendant also committed breach of the agreement as he failed to perform his part of the same. consequently, they filed a suit for possession against the defendant.3. in the written statement, the defendant controverted the allegations of the plaintiffs and inter alia pleaded that he was in possession of the land in part performance of the agreement dated 8th duly, 1959, and was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and is prepared to do so even .....

1. this judgment will dispose of regular second appeals nos. 1794 and 1795 of 1974. the facts as given in r. s. a. no. 1795 of 1974 are a under:--2. the plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for possession of the agricultural land on the allegation that ishar singh s/o narain singh was a last male holder of the land in dispute measuring 276 kanals 15 marlas and one-half share in widow smt. santi succeeded to his property. the plaintiffs claimed themselves to be the sixth degree collaterals of ishar singh. husband of smt. santi and as such entitled to inherit the suit property. they also pleaded that smt. santi made a valid will in their favour on 13-1-1967 vide exhibit p-1. in the written statement hari singh, defendant. pleaded that smt. santi had executed earlier a registered will in his favour on 6-2-1963 vide exhibit d-1 and on that basis the mutation has also been sanctioned in his name on 24-3-1967. the alleged will in favour of the plaintiff was denied. the trial court came to the conclusion that smt. santi did not execute any valid will in favour of the plaintiffs : whereas the will (ex. d-1) set-up by the defendant was found to be a genuine document. as a result of this finding. the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed.3. in appeal, the learned addl. district judge, affirmed the findings of the trial court and thus maintained the decree dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiffs have come up in second appeal in this court.4. no challenge has .....

order1. the controversy need to be settled in these five civil revision petitions nos. 1601, 1602, 1603, 1604 and 1605 of 1983 is the same and, thus, these are being disposed of together.2. the prayer of the petitioners under order 1, rule 10, civil p. c. to be impleaded as parties to the respective references now pending before the land acquisition court, faridkot has been declined by the said court primarily on the grounds-(i) that they had made no application under section 18 of the land acquisition act (for short, the act) to the collector and (ii) there is no provision in the act under which any land-owner can be impleaded as a party to a reference by the court. it may be pointed out here that the un-controverted case pleaded by the petitioners is that the acquired land was form their respective joint khatas in which they were co-shares along with the persons who actually made the applications under section 18 of the act. they also maintain that though the individual co-sharers who had filed and signed those applications under section 18 of the act did so as their authorised agents, yet even in the absence of such an authorization they are entitled to the be joined, as parties to the litigation pending in the lower court. after hearing the learned counsel for the parties i find that the whole approach adopted by the lower court is fallacious and the common impugned order deserves to be set aside.3. it has repeatedly been ruled by this court that if the property acquired .....

i.s. tiwana, j. 1. in these two petitions (no. 2540 and 2541 of 1975) two notices issued to the petitioner on may 5, 1975, under section 148 of the i.t. act, 1961 (for short 'the act'), for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 are impugned on identical grounds and thus the same are being disposed of through this common order. learned counsel for the parties are agreed that for purposes of this judgment a reference to the facts enumerated in the first petition only is enough.2. the petitioner-concern filed its return under section 139(1) of the act for the assessment year 1964-65, on october 1, 1964, declaring an assessable income of rs. 75,727. along with the return it claims to have filed the statement of accounts, copies of personal accounts of the partners, details of sales, interest paid and discount account. in response to notice dated january 6, 1966, under section 143(2) of the act, the petitioner was required to file a copy of the cash credits and squared up accounts along with confirmatory letters from the creditors showing specifically the districts in which those creditors were being assessed. it was also required to supply the information of sales and purchases above rs. 20,000 and the details of closing stock and basic valuation of the same. the petitioner claims to have supplied this information, which, according to it, was scrutinised by the ito and at the time of partial discussion of the case on april 21, 1966, the latter tick-marked the balance-sheet in .....